News analysis

Tragedy in Tucson

Are words to blame?

The attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords, a congresswoman from Arizona, has sparked a fiery debate about the dangers of heated political rhetoric

THE motive for the bloodthirsty attack on Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat embarking on her third term in Congress, remains opaque. The suspected gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, appears to be something of a paranoid, right-wing, anti-government conspiracy-theorist. But his politics are hardly coherent: he is interested, according to his MySpace page, in both the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. But his rampage on Saturday outside a supermarket in Tucson, in which a judge, a nine-year-old child, a congressional aide and three senior citizens were killed, and 14 others, including Mrs Giffords, were injured, is already having a political impact.

Eric Cantor, the number two in the Republican hierarchy in the House of Representatives, said that the coming week's legislative agenda, including the new Republican majority's much-publicised effort to repeal Barack Obama's health-care reforms, would be postponed so that Congress could take stock of the shooting. His boss, John Boehner, the new speaker of the House, tried to defuse any partisan tensions over the tragedy, issuing a statement arguing that an attack on any member of Congress constituted an attack on all of them. But several Democrats, including Dick Durbin, the party's number two in the Senate, have argued that wayward souls might find justification for such appalling acts in the pugnacious rhetoric many politicians use on the campaign trail.

As evidence that the right has gone too far, left-wingers point to a campaign website run by Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate in 2008, which at the past election had marked congressional seats she hoped the Republicans could wrest from the Democrats with cross-hair symbols, as if in the sights of a gun. They also cite one of Mrs Palin's gung-ho slogans: “Don't retreat, reload”. Mrs Giffords herself said of Mrs Palin's map last year, “When people do that, they've got to realise there's consequences to that.” Mrs Giffords's father, when asked if her daughter had had any enemies, replied “the whole Tea Party”, referring to the right-wing activists who helped to deliver the Republicans their resounding victory in November's election, and only narrowly failed to unseat Mrs Giffords herself.

Needless to say, both tea-party activists and their inspiration, Mrs Palin, reject the idea that they somehow contributed to the shooting. Mr Loughner, tea-partiers in Tucson say, has no known ties to any local group. What is more, points out the leader of one national network of tea-party outfits, it is not really clear he agreed with their politics. Mrs Palin, meanwhile, issued a statement of sympathy to the victims; a spokeswoman condemned any attempt to tie her to the massacre as “repulsive”. In other words, the debate about whether partisan rancour had anything to do with the shooting is itself becoming rancourous. Left-wing bloggers talk of the atrocity as a wish come true for the tea-party; right-wing bloggers retort that the left is exploiting the death and injury of innocents for political gain.

It is hard to see any resolute action emerging from this shouting match. America's protections for free speech—which Mrs Giffords herself helped remind the world of last week when she read out the first amendment to the constitution during the ceremonies surrounding the seating of the new Congress—preclude any legal limits on violent talk. It is testimony to the strength of America's gun lobby (and another constitutional safeguard) that there has been little talk of any measures to curb gun ownership as a result of the incident. Mrs Palin and a few others may find themselves on the back foot for a few weeks, and may indeed tone down their rhetoric for a spell. But after a spate of hand-wringing, Congress is likely to do little more than strengthen its security arrangements. That will come a little late for Mrs Giffords, who was shot in the head at close range, and remains in critical condition.

Mein Kampf was (and is) an extreme right wing tract, and the Nazis was an extreme rightwing movement.

As for dirigisme and etatism - Right wing elites had no problem with that (go see the Sun King; stabs at it by the Wilhelminian government under Bismark; etc.)

Hitler possibly stated he joined two of the strongest movements into one, nationalism and socialism. The blue print though is still based on Fascism innovated by Mussilini (and yes, a former socialist), as well as taking inspiration from the likes of Georg Ritter von Schönerer.

The nationalism trumped the socialism, the needs for conquest to precedence, industry was to be cultivated (and directed), while labor rights were killed pretty quickly once power was assumed.

With the racism, there was to be a welfare state for the German masses.

As for blue collar qualities, that may have been during the take off in the great depression, especially with the SA, where it was characterized as beefsteak (brown on the outside, red on the inside).

Still doesn't take away from the fact the movements was seen as one of extreme nationalism (even Hindenberg alludede to it); and on reason it got an opportunity to put together a government (Von Papen and Schleiker and others on the right thought they could control hiterl) with other volk parties and work with the Stalhelm.

Otherwise, not unusual for extremists to flip poles so to speak. Hitler may have participated in the Red Bavarian Soviet briefly before being overturned by the Freikorps.

@HobKnob:
Sarah Palin and the Tea Party specifically had Rep. Giffords in their gunsights. They were quite explicit about it, such as when Tea Party candidate hosted a June 6 event promoted with the sentence, "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly." It is the clear danger of that specific metaphor that plays out here. The message of gun violence couldn't be any clearer than that - until Jared Loughner heeded their clarion call and pulled the trigger of a gun that they aimed.
I expect that all politicians will use strong language as they practice their craft, but politicians must identify when their choice of words and ideas create a clear danger. I agree that Pres. Obama was 100% wrong when he made that knife/gun comment months ago, but everything else on your list of complaints is just feisty political talk.

I am disgusted with the political rhetoric of the USA, and in particular with that of Sarah Palin and her tea party supporters. They have said that they don't see a connection between their campaign slogans and the violent assassination attempt yesterday. They must be blind.

A movement against the violent rhetoric in this country is necessary, or we could degenerate into more violence and chaos.

"Jared Lee Loughner, appears to be something of a paranoid, right-wing, anti-government conspiracy-theorist... But his politics are hardly coherent: he is interested, according to his MySpace page, in both the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf."

There is nothing incoherent in being interested both by the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf: both are totalitarian Left-wing ideological text-books. So he hardly appears a Right-wing nutjob, quite opposite.

Just to remind those who repeat ad nauseum (intently or because of ignorance) that Nazism was an extreme right-wing movement: IT WAS NOT.

National SOCIALIST WORKERS party of Germany aka Nazi was as Left wing as it gets: massive working class grassroot membership; etatism matched only by their first cousins communists; total disregard of human or civil rights - and so on, and so forth.

Read the classic work by Raymond Aron The Opium of the Intellectuals before you start crowing about evil Right.

There is absolutely no evidence that the lefty nutcase looked at some map on Sarah Palin's website and said, "I need to get a gun...". Last year, when Major Nadal shot everyone at Fort Hood shouting "Alahu Akbar" CNN and others were saying not to rush to judgment and that religion might not have played a role. What is going on is the liberals are disgustingly using the tragedy for political purposes. Worse than reprehensible. If we are going to start restrict violent speech, start at the top:

Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
Obama: “Get in Their Faces!”
Obama: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
Obama: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
Obama: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose @ss to kick.“
Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

I am very sorry for the victims and hope Gabrielle Giffords fully recovers. The people responsible for a crime are those that carry it out. It's outrageous for anyone to implicate their political opponents in this murder.

I have real problems with the gun culture in the US. But it's a complex and deeply entrenched issue, so my comments on it can wait for another day.

We are now a country full of angry manic-depressed detached poorly educated semi-illiterate nut jobs who have easy access to semi-automatic weapons. Does that sound like a good idea to anyone? Or just plain suicidal? Mrs. Giffords is simultaneously against stricter immigration law and pro gun-rights. In retrospect that's not such a good idea. Maybe this will finally wake up all those pro gun-right politicians who are either on the take from the NRA or just looking for votes from the Republicans, the same guns are can be turned against them!

"We are now a country full of angry manic-depressed detached poorly educated semi-illiterate nut jobs who have easy access to semi-automatic weapons"

No. Actually we only once in a great while have the occasional such nut job, and that's why it's a big news story when a crazy man goes nuts with a gun in this country. How often does it happen? Maybe once a year? Once in ten years if you restrict it to cases where a politician is a target? We have 300 million people in this country, and a roughly equal number of guns. One gun-toting maniac per year works out to about 3 parts per billion. In chemistry, 3 ppb of anything is a barely detectable amount, not "a country full". I don't in any way want to discount the severity of this crime, but in terms of probabilities, we're all going to die of cancer or heart disease.

As to the topic of this article, if we collectively respond to this massacre by toning down the level of venom in our political arguments a bit, that can only be a good thing. There has been way too much demonizing of one group of Americans by another in recent years. It was discouraging to me to see President Bush, who saw an enemy under every foreign rock, replaced by Obama, who seemed to see an enemy in every group of Americans other than his own. Radio loudmouths, preachers, and out-of-work politicians are one thing, and I expect them to go over the top with their rhetoric, but I have never heard a sitting president use such pugilistic language towards his fellow Americans as Mr. Obama does. He can hardly make a speech without including the word "fight". Perhaps we can turn down the demonization a notch while still keeping our arguments passionate.

That said, with Loughner's rampage as a reminder that we really don't want a shooting war with each other, let's also keep in mind that the only person responsible for the recent shooting is the man with his finger on the trigger. Everyone seems to be very quick to grind their personal political axe on the whetstone of this clearly deranged, irrational, and profoundly disturbed individual. Published reports have Loughner saying leftist things to some people and right-wing things to others. From what I can make of his actual words, any connection between his brain and conventional reality is purely coincidental. While everyone is so quick to tell us why he did what he did, what we don't have is him actually telling us. He may never do that, and I expect most people wouldn't believe him if he did.

So, let's tone down the "fight" and "target" rhetoric, because that's a good thing to do in any case, but let's also not blame other people's words for the irrational actions of a crazed killer.

Really, I don't think the political climate in US has much to do with the Arizona shootings. Wackos are guided by voices, not talk radio. However, the tragedy highlights how tasteless hate-speech and weapon metaphors are.

1) When listening to all this noise about Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, keep in mind that they did not pull the trigger, all she did was put the gun sight on the target. Aiming a gun is not the same as murder. However, I think they may reasonably anticipate that the deranged might accept their unequivocal call-to-arms. They simply must accept culpability for their purposeful coordinated efforts to foster this atmosphere - especially when months before one of their targets, Rep. Giffords, gave clear protest of the danger they were inciting.
2) When I think of all the 9-year-old kids around the country who are looking at our practice of politics - the business of the American people - I cannot fathom what they must think of these events. I can only hope that they will now make their young voices heard loud and strong decrying the violent rhetoric of political discourse.

This is just the saddest, most heart-breaking thing to me. I am a woman near Congresswoman Giffords' age and, like her, have worked hard to reduce sexism in the culture, including the problems that lead to violence of this kind. She has done this by taking financial responsibility for herself, by working hard to develop her abilities and by trying to provide leadership in creating a safer and more productive political economy. Please consider:

1. Young men and women are not adults until age 24 or 25 when their brains are fully developed, including capacities for judgment and emotional regulation. The rental car companies have it right.

2. Many people continue to shame boys out of their emotional lives, and do not provide them with the emotional validation and connection with both mothers and fathers that they need to be well-adjusted and able to function well in school, in life and in relationships. They are also often left to fend for themselves in finding education and employment. They (just like girls) need both parents to take an interest in them and to "hold their hand" (literally and metaphorically) as they determine what their natural abilities are, what they are interested in, where the opportunities are, and how to cope with workplace politics.

3. Boys continue to receive the message that they need access to a lot of resources or money to attract a girlfriend/wife. This is not the case with many, many women. Most women with economic autonomy simply want a man who has some means and ability in the economy, but who also has the skills, including the emotional availability, to be a good parent.

Please lets raise our sons to be responsible and productive participants in the political economy and to be compassionate and mentoring fathers.

Karl Rove and his 50%+1 politics brought the ugliness of the Right-wingnuts into the mainstream. The Democrats never did anything of the kind when they wandered off into Left field.

The country has its share, or more, of dangerous nuts. Those who set them off are culpable. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there thinking of taking out a Republican to even the score, and others who think that shooting Giffords was a great idea that ought to be imitated.

An American shoots an American politician in America. The sheriff says that "Arizona has become the Mekka of Hate and vitriol". Is that not terribly offensive to a Moslem? Why should they be drawn into this tragedy? What if someone called a city "New York of racketeers"?

This counry needs to get real. People are getting to fanatic on both sides. This is a horrible tragedy, it is sad and disgraceful up all Americans. People need to settle there differences peacefully not by going on a shooting rampage and killing six people.

I have no idea whether this particular guy was a "nut job", a "cho", but the fact remains that there are a lot of people being swept under the rug by the american system.

And that what this man did was within his rights to do. He'll be punished, but up until the moment of his action... "Ain't that america, home of the free".

The editors, and majority of comments about this incident, seem to imply (or directly state) that america should somehow "weed out" the unbelievers.

Because of the terrorists, we now link all the federal databases, which used to be illegal. Congress only knows what rights we'll have to give up from this incident (my personal bet is the right of assembly, we gave up the posters long ago).

Please tell me, all you people who think this is the correct direction for our country: "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" -- will it be you? Which of the thousands (possibly millions) of laws haven't you broken at some point? (love thy neighbor comes to mind)

We make cotton and leather here, but we can't make shoes or clothes anymore?

We invented semi-conductors but we can't make them here anymore?

We have the best universities in the world but we have to import engineers?

We talk a good game about human rights while letting our own citizens perish so that we can use indonesian, phillipino and chinese slaves.

It seems to me that Caligula (the movie) attempted to show the decadence of the roman empire. America makes banks, movies, facebook, prisons and guns. Looks a lot like Rome to me.

It is too bad for the pc 'world-view' that those unemployed haven't taken the hint and taken a roman bath.

We need to employ everyone who wants to work, and at a level that they can survive on, or this thing ain't working. WE THE PEOPLE.

And we don't need 'living space', we have plenty. Really. The eco front can go pound sand for all I care about the polar bear, or whatever stupid bird, or global warming (apparently cooling).

With 10% of workers unemployed, I have a hard time accepting that we must protect the animals, environment, or workers. If you told the unemployed they had to hand carry nuclear waste they'd get to work on it.

But perhaps, to make right and left happy, we should go ahead and invade poland anyway.

Maybe our dear American friends need some kind of rules to enforce responsibility in the media and to temper incendiary rhetoric.

Those new rules in Hungary have been criticised perhaps too much?

What about a media landscape that profits from distortion and emotional manipulation more than truth and information?

American opinion leaders get more attention and authority with extreme provocation than any sober consideration of the facts.

Is a "free media" that serves only entertain in order to generate maximum ratings, pageviews and profits all better than one under government control?

It's interesting that government propaganda tries to pacify and inspire but hides the shameful truths while the corporate media tries to get people's attention by fomenting irrational fears and inventing absurd conspiracy theories while neglecting the boring tedious wonkish details.

Has any community found a better way to balance these apparently exclusive approaches?

Jared Lee Loughner is ultimately the one responsible for this massacre, yet the frequency of acts like this can be lessened even more by trying to ensure all politicians think twice about the implications of their rhetoric.

Palin's 'call to arms' doesn't sit well with the idea of democracy - regardless of ideology, she should be encouraging supporters to participate in democratic political discourse and not what could be construed as the encouragement of violent participation.

It's still not clear what the exact motive behind this tragedy was. Perhaps there isn't one solitary motive. The killing of a young girl doesn't seem political at all but the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords, a judge and political aide do seem to be.

It's a horrific event and my condolences & sympathies go out to those killed, hurt and the respective families involved, but there is enough evidence within this case to suggest a political motive existed (in part - with Giffords at least).

Given that, it makes sense to encourage Palin et al to produce rhetoric which isn't extremist, so the likelihood of events like this unfolding in the future are even less likely than before.